Salem - Release on Bail, Holding and trading of combat materiel
Translation: Marganit W.
Even though we had permits, the soldiers at the entrance refused to let us in at first, and were unwilling to call Tamer, the supervisor, claiming that they did not have his phone number. Since phones are not permitted, we had left ours in the car, so we had to go back to the distant parking lot to look for his number on our phone. But what’s worse…
While we are arguing with the soldiers, the brother of the accused woman arrived (see details of her trial below). This is the only chance close relatives have, to see the defendants. The brother was carrying a cell phone and keys, so he was refused entry. There are no cubbyholes for storage. You can’t bring the objects in, but there is no room to store them! The soldiers claim that he should have known not to bring a phone and keys. Normally, the Palestinians leave their belongings with the kiosk outside the court, but today is Ramadan and the kiosk owner did not show up. Surely, you can’t leave important objects with a stranger. We offered the brother to store his things in our car, but the soldiers forbade him to transfer anything from the Palestinian side of the fence to the Israeli side. We argued for almost an hour, worried that the trial might start without us. Eventually Tamer decided: the objects were to be stored in my car, on the Israeli side.
Sarin Haled Rashid Sawafta – ID 850389560
[See earlier reports on this case]
Judge: Major Avishag Agami Mordechai
Prosecutor: Lieutenant Liran Kagan
Defense: Aadel Samarra
A few minutes before we entered the court, there was a phone call confirming that the appeal the defense had submitted two weeks earlier regarding remand extension until the conclusion of the proceedings had been accepted, and the judge ordered Sarin released on 7000 shekel bail under restricted conditions.
The following quotation sums up the judge’s decision:
“The appellant was in internet contact with a Gaza resident regarding suspicious matters, but I have concluded that this contact did not constitute veritable security risk, in view of the fact that the respondent had cut off the relationship, or at least arrested its development. Under these circumstances I conclude that on the latter issue as well there is no ground for detention. Similarly, I do not regard the accumulated violations as ground for detention by reason of security risk that precludes the appellant’s release under restricted conditions.”
Since the indictment had already been presented, the defense requested postponement of the hearing until 16.9.13 (as the attorney goes abroad after Ramadan) in an attempt to reach an agreement with the prosecution.
The judge noted angrily, “Make sure this does not become an excuse to postpone the trial. Don’t come afterwards and ask to hear the evidence.”
The prosecution agreed and the hearing was set for 16.9.13.